[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

The only provision in the list of 4 items below which I would support
is the first one: "These allocation[s] are not transferable"

In the case that these addresses are no longer used or needed, they have to be
returned to "Last /8" Pool at the RIPE NCC.

Number 2 - is a non-starter for me, because it is easily circumvented and
difficult to check and to enforce.

Number 3 - has already been commented on, as contradicting the model and mode
of operation of an LIR.

Number 4 - I don't get, neither what the intention is, nor the mechanism to
manage that.

Wilfried

On 2016-05-17 14:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
> is now available for discussion.
> 
> The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
> to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
> These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several restrictions:
> 
> -    These allocation are not transferrable
> -    LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
> -    Sub-allocations are not possible
> -    Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 15 June 2016.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>